Dismissed

Madhukumar.N @ Madhu v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Jan 2026CRL.P/16037/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband and mother-in-law sought quashing of dowry-death trial proceedings after their discharge application was rejected. The High Court held that allegations of dowry demand and torture prima facie stood, and the contentions raised were matters for trial; it declined to interfere and rejected the petition.

What did the court decide?

None granted; criminal petition rejected, trial proceedings to continue.

Madhukumar.N @ Madhu Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:2330 CRL.P No. 16037 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16037 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MADHUKUMAR N., @ MADHU S/O LATE NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT KADRIPURA VILLAGE KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR – 563 101.

¶10

BHAGYAMMA

¶11

W/O LATE NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT KADRIPURA VILLAGE KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR – 563 101.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY MISS VINUTHA V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI SREEDHARA G. R., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA (KOLAR RURAL PS) REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

RADHAMMA W/O SEENAPPA @ SRINIVAS

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:2330 CRL.P No. 16037 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT DODDURU VILLAGE BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 114.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1)

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C., (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SC NO.140/2024 IN CRIME NO.253/2023 INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS (ACCUSED NO. 1 AND 2) FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 3, 4 OF DP ACT U/S 304(B), 498(A) AND 34 OF IPC REGISTERED BY THE KOLAR RURAL POLICE PENDING ON THE FILE OF 2ND ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOLAR.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in S.C.No.140/2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:2330 CRL.P No. 16037 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Heard Miss.Vinutha V, learned counsel for

¶33

Sri.Sreedhara G.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1.

¶34

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

¶35

3.1. The petitioner No.1/accused No.1 gets married to one Ambika who is now deceased. On 23.05.2023, five years after the marriage, the wife of the 1^st petitioner commits suicide. A complaint then comes to be registered by the mother which becomes a crime in Crime No.253/2023 for offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. Filing of the charge sheet leads the petitioners to file a discharge application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the concerned Court. The concerned Court in terms of its order dated 28.06.2025, has rejected the application for discharge and directed trial to be conducted. It is this that has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:2330 CRL.P No. 16037 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the concerned Court has grossly erred in not considering the application for discharge in its proper perspective. He would submit that there is no material against these petitioners though they are husband and mother-in-law. He would submit that the allegations are entirely false. The offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC cannot be invoked against the petitioners. There is not even a prima facie material. Crucial documents connected with the issue are not even looked into by the investigating officer. It is his submission that accused No.1 and deceased and their children were residing separately. There is no involvement of accused No.2 in the alleged offences. The complainant for the first time has raised the question of demand of dowry after the death of the deceased.

¶40

Per contra , learned HCGP would vehemently refute

¶41

the submissions contending that the offences are the ones punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC inter alia. The allegations are grave. Therefore, this Court should not

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:2330 CRL.P No. 16037 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

interject the proceedings, particularly when the order of the concerned Court rejecting discharge bears adequate reasons.

¶46

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.

¶47

The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. A crime comes to be registered against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences in Crime No.253/2023. The police after investigation have filed a charge sheet. The charge sheet as obtaining in Column No.17 reads as follows:

¶48

“ಈ �ೋ�ಾ�ೋಪ�ಾ ಪ�� ಅಂಕಣ-14 ರ�� ಕಂಡ �ಾ�-1 ರವರು ಬಂ�ಾರ�ೇ�ೆ �ಾಲೂ�ಕು �ೊqÀÆØರು �ಾ!ಮದ $ಾ%&ಾ'ರು�ಾ(�ೆ . �ಾ�-1 ರವರ ಮಗ*ಾದ ಅಂ+,ಾಳನು/ ಈ �ೋ�ಾ�ೋಪ�ಾ ಪ�� ಅಂಕಣ-12 ರ�� ಕಂಡ ಆ�ೋ1-1 ರವ2�ೆ ,ೊಟು� 45ಾಂಕ: 19.11.2018 ರಂದು ,ೋ6ಾರ ನಗರದ +ಂದು7ಾಳ8ಂ ಕ6ಾ8ಣ ಮಂಟಪದ�� ಮದು$ೆ 7ಾ9ದು:, ಅವ2�ೆ 3 ವಷ<ದ ಶ>ಾಂ? �ೌಡ ಮತು( 11 Bಂಗಳ �ಾವC ಎಂಬ ಇಬFರು GೆಣHಮಕIJರು�ಾ(�ೆ .

¶49

ಆ�ೋ1ಗ*ಾದ 1 ಮತು( 2 Gಾಗೂ ಮೃ�ೆ ಅಂ+,ಾ ರವರು �ಾ�-12 ರವ2�ೆ �ೇ2ದ ಮ5ೆಯ�� $ಾಸ$ಾ'ದ:ರು. �ಾ�-1 ರವರು ಮದು$ೆ ಸಮಯದ�� ಆ�ೋ1-1 ರವ2�ೆ ಒಂದು ಬಂ�ಾರದ ಕB(ನ Oೈನು, ಒಂದು ಉಂಗುರ ಮತು( ಒಂದು Rಾ!S 6ೆT ಅನು/ ವರದ��ೆ&ಾ' ,ೊ��ದು:, ಅಂ+,ಾJ�ೆ ಒಂದು ಬಂ�ಾರದ 6ಾಂU Oೈನು, 5ೆಕVS, WXYೕ6ೆ �ೆT, 2 ಉಂಗುರ ,ೊ��ರು�ಾ(�ೆ .

¶50

ಆ�ೋ1-1 $ಾಟZ [ಲ�Z ಸX<S ,ೆಲಸ 7ಾಡುB(ದು:, ಆ�ೋ1ಗ*ಾದ 1 ಮತು( 2 ರವರು ಅಂ+,ಾJ�ೆ ತವರು ಮ5ೆ\ಂದ Gೆ]^ನ ವರದ��ೆ ಹಣ ತರುವಂ�ೆ Wರುಕುಳ CೕಡುB(ದು:, �ಾ�-1 ರವರು ಬಂ�ಾರ�ೇ�ೆ �ಾಲೂ�ಕು `!ೕ.aೇತ! ಧಮ<ಸcಳ �ಾ!7ಾdವೃ4e

¶51

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:2330 CRL.P No. 16037 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

ಟ!S� Cಂದ 1 ಲf ರೂ.ಗಳನು/ �ಾಲವ5ಾ/' ಪgೆದು ಆ�ೋ1-1 ರವ2�ೆ ,ೊ��ರು�ಾ(�ೆ . ಆದರೂ ಸಹ ಆ�ೋ1ಗ*ಾದ 1 ಮತು( 2 ರವರು ಅಂ+,ಾJ�ೆ ತವರು ಮ5ೆ\ಂದ Gೆ]^ನ ವರದ��ೆ ಹಣ ತರುವಂ�ೆ Wರುಕುಳ CೕಡುB(ರುವh�ಾ' �ಾ�-1 ರವ2�ೆ ಅಂ+,ಾ BJ%ದು:, &ಾವh�ಾದರೂ ಹಣ ಬಂ�ಾಗ ,ೊಡುವh�ಾ' ಸ7ಾiಾನ GೇJದ:ರು.

¶55

ಆದರೂ ಸಹ ಆ�ೋ1ಗ*ಾದ 1 ಮತು( 2 ರವರು ಅಂ+,ಾJ�ೆ Wರುಕುಳ CೕಡುB(ದು:, ಸದ2ಯವರ Wರುಕುಳವನು/ �ಾಳ6ಾರ�ೇ 45ಾಂಕ: 23.05.2023 ರಂದು Rೆಳ'ನ jಾವ 3.00 ಗಂ�ೆ ಸಮಯದ�� ಅಂ+,ಾ ತನ/ $ಾಸದ ಮ5ೆಯ ,ೊಠ9ಯ�� lೕ¯ÁÒವm�ೆ GಾWದ: jೋ�ಯ %ೕ�ೆ\ಂದ 5ೇಣು GಾW,ೊಂಡು ಮೃತಪ��ರು�ಾ(*ೆ .

¶56

DzÀÝjAzÀ DgÉÆÃ¦-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2 gÀªÀgÀÄ PÀ®A 498(J)-304 (©) gÉ.« 34 L¦¹ &3-4 9.1.ಆ?� 2ೕ�ಾ8 ಅಪ�ಾಧ ಎಸ'ರುವhದು ತCnೆ\ಂದ ದೃಢಪ��ರುತ(�ೆ .

¶57

The petitioners file discharge application. The

¶58

discharge application comes to be rejected by the following order:

¶59

7. POINT NO. 1 :- Advocate for accused has submitted that allegations made against the accused No.1 and 2 in the charge sheet is for the offences punishable U/s.498(A), 304(B), R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C. and U/s.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Ingredients of offences required to be proved by the prosecution. There is allegation of demand of dowry. There is an intention to commit the offence alleged in the case by the accused.

¶60

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that during the course of investigation, Materials available against the accused is sufficient to frame charge and try the accused for offences punishable U/s.498(A), 304(B), R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C. and U/s.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In order to prolong the proceedings, accused have

¶61

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:2330 CRL.P No. 16037 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

filed this discharge application. Averments made in the petition are all false.

¶65

Perused the charge sheet. In the charge sheet it is alleged that accused have physically and mentally tortured the deceased Ambika to bring additional dowry from her parental home. As she could not tolerate the said torture Ambika committed suicide by hanging herself to the roof with the help of the saree. Along with charge sheet, statement of witnesses are produced before the court. Material available on record is sufficient to frame charge against the accused for offences punishable U/s.498(A), 304(B), R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C. and U/s.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Whatever contention raised by the accused may be considered at the time of defence evidence. With these observations, this court is of the opinion that, there is no merit in the application filed on behalf of the accused No.1 and 2 seeking discharge. As sufficient materials are available to frame charge against accused No.1 and 2 for offences punishable U/s.498(A), 304(B), R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C. and U/s.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as rightly pointed out by the prosecution side, this court is of the opinion that application filed by the accused No.1 and 2 is liable to be dismissed. Hence, point No.1 is answered in the Negative .

¶66

POINT NO.2 : In view of findings on the above point No.1, application filed by accused No.1 and 2 is devoid of merits. Hence, same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the following order is made;

¶67

O R D E R

¶68

Application filed by accused No.1 and 2 U/s.227 of Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed.”

¶69

The offences are the ones punishable under

¶70

Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC. Prima facie finding that the wife of accused No.1 was unable to bear the torture, both physically and mentally on demand of dowry. Therefore, there

¶71

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:2330 CRL.P No. 16037 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

was no warrant of interference. It is un-understandable as to

¶74

how the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked when the offences are against the husband and the mother-in-law and the offences are of Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC. All that the petitioners are projecting before this Court would undoubtedly become a matter of trial including the fact that accused No.2 did reside away from the couple or with the couple. In the light of this matter requiring evidence, there is no warrant to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./Section 528 of the BNSS.

¶75

Finding no merit in the Criminal Petition, the Criminal Petition stands rejected .

¶76

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶77

¶78

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37 CT:SS

Madhukumar.N @ Madhu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhukumar.N @ Madhu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjunathaswamy Vs the State by Banaswadi Police Station

Sri. Irfan Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

K Seetharaman Vs M Hanumanna

Mr. Manoj Kumar Jain Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Nithin a S Vs State by

Mr Sandeep K Reddy Vs State of Karnataka